PDA

View Full Version : CNN analyst: 'Gun control Unlikely to Get on Agenda..."


bwiese
04-18-2007, 12:58 PM
from http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/17/schneider.gun.control/index.html

Gun Control Unlikely To Get on Agenda Despite Shootings
• Last major gun laws were 1993 Brady bill and 1994 assault weapons ban
• Those who oppose gun control vote based on that issue
• Those in favor don't vote the issue, so politicians stay away from it

By Bill Schneider
CNN Senior Political Analyst

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Is the Virginia Tech tragedy likely to put gun control on the political agenda? Don't bet on it. In recent years, gun control has been an issue most politicians prefer to stay away from.

The last significant gun control measures to make it through Congress were the Brady bill in 1993 and the assault weapons ban in 1994.

And what happened? Democrats lost control of Congress for 12 years. President Clinton said the gun lobby had a lot to do with his party's defeat. Democrats have been gun-shy ever since.

Then-Vice President Al Gore rarely talked about gun control during the 2000 presidential campaign. Gore even went so far as to say he wouldn't restrict sportsmen or hunters, "None of my proposals would have any effect on hunters or sportsmen or people who use rifles."

Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, the Democrats' 2004 presidential candidate, went hunting during his campaign. He defended 2nd Amendment rights said during a campaign debate, saying, "I will protect the Second Amendment. I always have and I always will."

Nevertheless, the National Rifle Association ran an ad railing against Kerry and Gore's stance on gun rights. "John Kerry, you are not fooling America's gun owners," the ad stated. "They know you voted against their gun rights for 20 years. So now you're running away from your record, just like Al Gore did."

This year, former New York City mayor and current Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, a longtime supporter of gun control, says the matter should be left to the states. Polls show the public supports gun control. Why don't the politicians get with the people?

Support for gun control dropping

Public support for stricter gun laws has been declining since the 1990s, according to the Gallup Poll. In January 2007, the number of people who supported stricter gun laws was at 49 percent, less than a majority for the first time since at least 1990.

Why such a decline? It seems related to the steady drop in the nation's violent crime rate since 1994. After a shocking incident like the one at Virginia Tech, public anger over gun violence rises. So does support for gun control measures.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, issued a statement saying, "I believe this will re-ignite the dormant effort to pass common-sense gun regulations in this nation.''

But public anger is not usually sustained very long, whereas gun owners remember every gun control vote as a threat to their rights. Gun owners vote the issue. Supporters of gun control typically don't. So politicians believe they will pay a price at the polls if they support new guns laws, even when most voters agree with them. When it comes to public opinion, intensity matters. Not just numbers.


* * * * * *

chevy_dude
04-18-2007, 1:21 PM
and its a damn good thing that gun rights supporters vote, or we would be like Canada and Cuba. I know they are not the same but just contrasting the two sides of strict gun control. I mean even Canada is not immune to school shootings.

The Soup Nazi
04-18-2007, 1:26 PM
Ironically this is what comes to mine as to what we've done for gun rights and impressed on the anti gunners.

"Remember great Comrade Stalin's Orders, 'Not one step backwards!'"

Mute
04-18-2007, 1:34 PM
Time to keep kicking the anti-gunners. Especially if they're down. I'm not going to be fooled into complacency by these media jackals. They go owners to let their guards down.

stag1500
04-18-2007, 1:38 PM
The article conveniently forgot to mention that the current Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid (a Democrat!), opposed the '94 Federal Assault Weapons Ban.

Super_tactical
04-18-2007, 1:40 PM
I have a boner. Does anyone else?

Bwahahahahahah!!!

FreedomIsNotFree
04-18-2007, 4:00 PM
Its nice to know that any new visitors to this site will know that we have members with boners....:rolleyes:

slick_711
04-18-2007, 4:08 PM
"Why such a decline? It seems related to the steady drop in the nation's violent crime rate since 1994. After a shocking incident like the one at Virginia Tech, public anger over gun violence rises. So does support for gun control measures."



Sounds very Brady Bunch-esque to me...

The country's violent crime rates began dropping in 1992, and their continued drop had absolutely nothing to do with the 1994 Federal assault weapons ban. It most likely had to do with the decline of crack sales and use in major urban areas; but it certainly had nothing to do with the AWB. It's omissions of fact like this that make the Brady bunch and their supporters so ludicrous.

Don't get too excited over this article though, from the looks of the way it was written it's more of an (albeit subtle) "hey you citizens that are anti-gun need to get up and talk about it" stand point; rather than congratulating the pro-gun community on gaining a few inches in a war over twenty miles.

grammaton76
04-18-2007, 4:08 PM
Well, at least it will counteract the arfcom statements, that none of us have retained the necessary equipment, due to the state we live in...

Surveyor
04-18-2007, 4:10 PM
Its nice to know that any new visitors to this site will know that we have members with boners....:rolleyes:

Come on now, you know that was funny :D .

I'm okay with him saying it, as long as he doesn't show it.

FreedomIsNotFree
04-18-2007, 4:15 PM
Hey I'm not one to Judge...I just think there is a time and place for everything...

slick_711
04-18-2007, 4:18 PM
Well, at least it will counteract the arfcom statements, that none of us have retained the necessary equipment, due to the state we live in...


Hmm. I am an arfcom member but I use it solely for AR parts/technical info I can't find here(rare), I don't pay any attention to the BS chat threads over there. So I'm not sure what you're talkin about Gram, but I'll take your word for it since I know you're squared away.

The "forgetCA" arfcom crew can bl** me anyway though, I assure them if I need my equipment it is ready to go, I simply refuse to break the law by using my legally possessed standard cap mags with my fixed mag build for anything short of war on the streets of San Diego. Besides, not being able to use them with my rifle makes it much less tempting to unload the M855, TAP, and 77grSMK they're all loaded with. :D :D

grammaton76
04-18-2007, 4:25 PM
Hmm. I am an arfcom member but I use it solely for AR parts/technical info I can't find here(rare), I don't pay any attention to the BS chat threads over there. So I'm not sure what you're talkin about Gram, but I'll take your word for it since I know you're squared away.

*grin* Appreciate the vote of confidence, but I'm just exaggerating here. The few threads I've been shown on the CA front have tended to go on about how the whole state consists of San Francisco. There were a number of threads over there, that got linked to on here (around when the OLL thing started) where anti-CA sentiment was actually kinda funny. "They can't have them guns, none of 'em could use 'em!" [Insert droning chatter here]

The "forgetCA" arfcom crew can bl** me anyway though, I assure them if I need my equipment it is ready to go, I simply refuse to break the law by using my legally possessed standard cap mags with my fixed mag build for anything short of war on the streets of San Diego. Besides, not being able to use them with my rifle makes it much less tempting to unload the M855, TAP, and 77grSMK they're all loaded with. :D :D

Good idea. This is why you need a gripless setup (although I imagine you probably have that already)...